In Depth

In a split decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, the majority upheld a mother's conviction of battery against her
daughter, but one judge felt her conviction had to be overturned in light of a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision.

The daughter had misbehaved all day and hit her brother in the face, cursed at her mother, and then locked herself in the
bathroom. Matthew got into the bathroom, hit J.M. on her legs and arm with a closed fist, and later hit the daughter several
more times with her fist and a belt. She even tried to remove a blanket J.M. was wearing to get a better shot at her daughter
with a belt. J.M. later testified the blows from her mother hurt.

The state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Matthew was guilty of battery against her daughter and found her actions
toward her daughter didn't constitute reasonable corporate punishment. Matthew's repeated hitting of J.M. with a belt
and a closed fist was not reasonable, Judge Robb wrote.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented in a separate opinion, finding that in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision
in Willis v. State, No. 888 N.E.2d, 177, 180 (Ind. 2008), the Court of Appeals should have reversed her conviction. Although
he agrees in principle with the result reached by the majority, the facts of the Willis case and the instant case are similar,
he said. Both children were repeatedly warned by their parents to stop misbehaving and used progressive forms of discipline
before resorting to striking their children repeatedly.

The chief judge agrees that the Supreme Court's decision constitutes a change in Indiana's policy toward child abuse,
and even writes in a footnote that it's troubling that Indiana is headed in such a direction of allowing corporal punishment
without directive from the legislature to do so.

While Chief Judge Baker wrote the trial courts in both cases concluded the mothers went beyond the boundary of reasonableness,
the Supreme Court has instructed the appellate court to second-guess those conclusions as a matter of law. As such, he believes
the court is compelled to reverse Matthew's conviction in light of Willis.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.